"Also, I find terms like "speciesist" ridiculous, and when push comes to shove I do believe in hierarchy."

Speciesist is the analogue to racist, fascist, sexist and so on and addresses the false dichtonomy between human animals and nonhuman animals. So when push comes to shove, you believe in, e.g. the hierarchy of discriminating against women and people of color? If not, then you clearly _are_ a speciecist, since you reserve the assignation of ethical rights to humans only. This would put on par with a sexist who finds women's rights ridiculous, or a racist who finds the right of people of color not to be enslaved ridiculous.

BTW, depending on your definition of harm, slavery of humans could very well be done without harm. Say, you got a 100 Africans working on your farm, don't pay them salary but provide food and health care and basic housing, but restrict their movement. There wouldn't be any physical harm, but if you're not suffering from racism or other ethical handicaps it would be totally unacceptable.

Speciesism is just a word, what's relevant here is the concept behind it. It means humans have no right to discriminate against animals just because they are not member of our species. Just like men have no right to discriminate against women just because they are not members of the male gender. If you find the term speciesism ridiculous, then, as a logical consequence, you would also have to find the term sexism ridiculous. If not, then the only conclusion can be that you *are* a speciesist who is trying to add value to himself by trying to discredit the concept behind the term speciesism.